A slew of front groups have attacked wind energy on The Standard-Times editorial page in recent months and all of them have one thing in common: They have no interest in facing the reality of global warming. How can we talk about the price of clean energy without talking about the immense value of cutting industrial carbon pollution?

Miles Grant

A slew of front groups have attacked wind energy on The Standard-Times editorial page in recent months and all of them have one thing in common: They have no interest in facing the reality of global warming. How can we talk about the price of clean energy without talking about the immense value of cutting industrial carbon pollution?

When it comes to climate science, wind opposition ranges from telling silence to outright denial:

It's no surprise Amy Ridenour's "National Center for Public Policy Research" rejected climate science in her May 16 column ("Pro&Con: Should Congress work to combat climate change? Here are 10 good reasons for Congress not to"). It took nearly half a million dollars from Exxon Mobil from 1998 to 2008, according to ConservativeTransparency.org. Before she denied climate science, a 1995 Philip Morris memo described Ridenour as "a willing ally" in fighting efforts to hold big tobacco accountable for its denial of the link between cigarettes and cancer. Marc Brown actually has two things he doesn't want to talk about: Climate change, and who's paying him to attack offshore wind energy. His March 19 column ignored climate change altogether. Brown calls his group the "New England Ratepayers Association," but when pressed by a reporter with Commonweath, Brown wouldn't disclose a single supporter. Perhaps no one wants to talk about climate change less than Audra Parker, whose April 7 letter was silent on the subject. As detailed at CapeWindNow.org, Parker's "Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound" is bankrolled by barons of the coal and oil industries that are fueling global warming.

Global warming is the single biggest threat facing New England's wildlife. Last December, warming waters were a key factor in the sudden shutdown of the Gulf of Maine's shrimp season. Across New Hampshire, Vermont and southern Maine, moose populations are tumbling as warmer temperatures allow ticks to thrive all winter long. In New Hampshire this past winter, a stunning 64 percent of the calves tracked in a state Fish and Game Department study died from winter ticks.

We're also seeing more frequent and increasingly violent extreme weather events like Superstorm Sandy, along with drought, sea level rise and other stressors that threaten our communities, worsen our public health, and destroy key fish and wildlife habitat. Globally, we've now had more than 350 consecutive months above the long-term average, meaning a 27-year-old has never lived through a "cooler than normal" month.

We urgently need to clean up our electricity grid to protect people and wildlife from the worst impacts of climate change. Nowhere stands to gain from that transition quite like SouthCoast. Already, the new Marine Commerce Terminal being built to service offshore wind projects has created 120 new jobs and generated new business for dozens of local companies and contractors. Cape Wind is projected to employ 600 to 1,000 people during its construction and manufacturing phases, and it's just the first of several major wind projects in the pipeline for the waters off of southeastern New England.

Wind opponents often try to create a false choice, pretending we have to choose only one among offshore wind, onshore wind and solar power. The truth is, with temperatures and sea levels rising steadily and local unemployment remaining stubbornly high, we need to embrace all of those options when it comes to reducing our carbon pollution and creating local clean energy jobs. And with all of us still breathing pollutants from the Brayton Point power station, still due to operate until 2017, the transition to clean energy can't come fast enough.

The front groups peddling wind opposition don't want to talk about climate change because the consequences aren't their problem. If they succeed in blocking Cape Wind, do you think they'll stick around to find out just how bad global warming is for scallops and how great it is for jellyfish? Or will they be off to try to block the next clean energy project, keeping some other community breathing dirty air and hooked on polluting energy?

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.